NevaMasquerade

Nevertheless, let it be clear that I remain on more conservative positions. Not only do I believe that some of the best works of The Doors are precisely on Strange Days, but I think that the analogy between the two albums is much more structural than musical and, even less, content-related. If I can make myself understood, the first is an existential album, but what strikes me is the transcendentalization of certain tragic, bluesy, and orientalist factors. Strange Days is a much warmer and more personal album, and furthermore, I believe this is the album where Morrison truly takes charge, hypnotizing the listener and making the quality of the work at least equal to its predecessor. He won't succeed in other albums... but that's another story.

On a message board that defines itself as debaser, the review can also be a starting point for dialogue!! There are no constraints of print media (read: publishers), readers of a certain target, or anything else, but the freedom to write is always bound and subjected not only to subsequent discussion and participation, but also to the votes given to it, for which we should ensure (from our side) the absence of reviews like "this album is beautiful. The end." That said: while I do not agree with some of what grasshopper wrote, it was a review that I feel deserves recognition, if only because it was essential yet clear in its content. The description of the album is always made (and it's debatable, but more than legitimate considering the previous work and the band) for comparison with the first album; moreover, it offers us, which is (intentionally?) daring, a personal perspective that is somewhat downsizing and contrary to the mainstream view of the work, precisely by using the comparison as justification.

This is definitely true! But I would like (and correct me if I'm wrong) us to clarify the terms: personally, I use the terms doom metal and gothic metal somewhat interchangeably, meaning their relationship as a genre (doom) - species (gothic metal). Gothic metal merely emphasizes those introspective and romantic characteristics while still maintaining a very funereal musical framework, yet still rooted in a fairly Sabbath-like approach. In my view, the Anathema have always remained a doom band, but slowly they've specialized their sound towards gothic with a musical trajectory (overall) on a downward slope compared to their beginnings, don't you think? It's as if, in their obsession with experimentation, they have stopped making their own music to don garments that still haven't fully suited them. I justify my vote this way as I am still anxiously waiting to hear an album that is OVERALL as valid as the early works of Anathema; having changed genres and, it's true, being one of the few bands to proudly bear the title of gothic metal is not by itself a guarantee of quality for their entire body of work.

So pessimistic?? I believe and hope that our interest in artists and albums unknown to the general public is proof of the opposite. Perhaps the must-have albums are not many, but if only a few albums could not surpass that (very low) threshold represented by the average production of the current music market, then maybe it would be better if we saved ourselves the effort.

Without a doubt, it is NOT a '90s album, but it ranks well. The best work by Tool: it carries all the anguish and existentialism of Lateralus, but this effect is achieved using a musical style that is not only very original (how to define it?? progressive-metal-grunge??[how ugly!]) but is also much less suited for this purpose than the style used in Lateralus.

I enjoyed reading the review. I don’t feel qualified to judge either this or the album, as I don’t own it: I only have the first "arbeit.." which I consider an excellent record. You rightly note that "The first thing that strikes most listeners is Stratos's voice," and in this regard, I’d like to ask you a question: don’t you find that at times our singer indulges a bit too much in a prima donna manner, self-satisfied with his unique (and also pleasant) singing style? I apologize in advance if my ignorance on the subject, due to having only listened to that one album by the Area (which I still consider quite valid), makes me say something foolish.

the reason for my non-authentication is known only to my brain..

Good review: I think it describes the album well. The only thing I don’t agree with is the rating given to the album. It is certainly a good album (very much so), but I don’t believe it reaches the status of an absolute masterpiece (like no other Belle & Sebastian album anyway): don't you think it suffers from a slight overvaluation because albums with this style and simplicity are hard to find nowadays?

The album is very moody, in my opinion... But its quality never reaches that of the hard (for the N.), nor the rather classic Bleach or the schizoid fervor of In Utero, so not even the acrobatic masterpiece of Nevermind. No one has highlighted hairspray queen, which I personally like a lot. You can tell that the review was written by a big Nirvana fan and, frankly, I understand many of the things you've said, but if you’re not talking among friends and you want to write a review, you need to try to be a bit more detached.

As for the review, the vote is conditioned by what was said above (I find it a bit too biased), but I also consider the album in question to be quite controversial to review, so...